British Airways in hot water over 3-engine flight...

[michal 44]

What exactly was this risk? Sorry, I don't get it.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

[btacon 1,788]

Michael. I'm sorry that you don't get it. I'll try once again to explain my point.A 747 crew chose to take a rather full A/C across the cold Atlantic, with an engine out.Landed safely, but only after declaring an EMERGENCY.When the aircraft was ferried out of repair-dock, guess what...another engine died? S*** happens!Does that about cover the risk? Why press on when a delay meant better safety? What realy is your point Michael? Do you drive with bald tires? Broken windshield wipers? 1 headlight out?Cheers,bt

[Guest B1900 Mech]

:-lol Every statement justifying what this crew did is a load of crap,I bet if you looked in BA's 747 QRH, this would have been an abort situation. This was a revenue,not a ferry flight!:-mad http://fl250.blogspot.com/2005/02/law-of-u...nsequences.html

[michal 44]

Risk probably increased from 0.0000000000000001 to 0.00000000000001.No, I don't drive with bald tires but I don't drive with brand new tires every day either and certainly I have been known to drive with broken wipers or with headlight out. The whole thing is just awash with cheap shots and 'propaganda'. By the way, I also go to Chinese restaurants knowing perfectly well that if I looked at their kitchens I might have walked out. So is life, we all decide what is an acceptable risk every day. Don't try to explain your point again. I know perfectly well where you are coming from but I simply disagree ;-)Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

[btacon 1,788]

Fair enough, feel free to disagree.bt

[KevinAu 441]

>>And for those quoting such and such procedures, unless you can>produce the actual BA procedures, it is all conjecture, IMHO.>>I'd like to know if BA does something to this pilot, and if>so, what?>>Sonar5>Sure, here, and if the pilots did miscalculate the fuel required, then they certainly did screw up, but of course, that is all conjecture. Either way, that is a completely separate issue than the issue of continuance of flight on 3 engines on a 747:Flight Beyond The Nearest Suitable Airport (4-Engined Aircraft)The prime requirement following an engine shutdown in-flight is the continued safety of the aircraft and its occupants. The Commander may elect to continue beyond the nearest suitable airport, to a moredistant airport, if the following requirements are met::A. The Commander considers that in all respects it is safe to continue to that airport.B. Capability exists with two engines inoperative to clear all obstacles by at least 2000 FT within 10nm either side of intended track to that airport.C. Normal Fuel Required must be available unless the requirements of In-flight Reduction of Normal Fuel Required can be met. ((Normal fuel is fuel to destination, execute a MAP divert to alternate with Fuel + 5% contingency adn land with reserve fuel ( approx 4000 kg ))D. Sufficient fuel must be available at all times for two engine inoperative flight to the nearest suitable airport, plus a fixed reserve of + 30 minutes.E. Sufficient fuel must be available at all times to support depressurized flight to the nearest suitable airport, plus a fixed reserve of + 30 minutes

[Sonar5 3]

Hi Kevin,And the two issues are integrally linked in this factual example.If those are the actual BA procedures above, he has some internal problems now too.This was one flight and any attempt to disconnect the declaration of the Emergency due to Fuel problems, from the initial cause of that fuel problems, the engine, is not very prudent, IMHO.One led to the other, and in the Chain of decisions, I still feel what he did was wrong.If that guy ditched in the sea, the NTSB or whomever investigates would list primal causes as fuel starvation caused by Pilot Error, IMHO, with ancillary causes the engine, the pilot not diverting earlier before he reached a point of declaring an emergency, and the decisions he made may not have caused any deaths on this one, but I wonder how close he really came. I still would like to know how many pounds of fuel he had remaining. We may never know.And yes, by armchair quartebacking this, pilots learn form it so that it does not happen to them.Fuel Starvation is a lot more common in GA flights by pilots like me, than by Commercial Entities like BA, but none the less, they still occur, and this could easily have been prevented.Even the BA Rep took a cheap shot by making a comment that Authorities would have been more concerned about a fuel dump.This is blame shifting, and IMHO, it is not working very well on me. :-)Regards,JoePS - Kevin, a scenario. Let's say I take off from F70, my home airport in a Rented Twin Commanche with two friends, the FBO tells me on takeoff, I have sparks coming from an engine, (Now Documented on the frequency), and I say oh, that's ok, I'll fly on up to San Fran anyway, shut down the engine and keep going. I end up declaring an emergency and land in say Fresno, with barely any fuel in the tanks, (enough to get me on the ground) fire trucks on the runway, and there to greet me is the FSDO Guy for a Ramp Check, since he saw me come in on One Egine. He then calls the FBO, and they tell him about the sparks on takeoff.What does the FSDO Guy do to my Ticket?&Isn't the Engine Shutdown linked to my Emergency? ****************Grab My FREEWARE Voice recognition Profiles here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a][a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=60740]FSD Avanti Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

[KevinAu 441]

Yes, if they did crash from fuel starvation, the chain of events would certainly begin with the engine failure in this incident. However, the hue and cry is not over the fuel situation, it is over the concept of continuing the flight after the loss of an engine. You do not need to lose an engine in order to run out of fuel. Plenty of people run out of fuel with all their engines running. Even if they did not run low on fuel, and everything went perfectly on 3 engines, the hue and cry would still be on the continuance of flight on 3 engines, wouldn't it?And by the way, it is not just the BA ops manual, you can find similar passages in our own FAR's here on the better side of the pond:Sec. 121.565Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting.(a) Except as provided in paragraph (:( of this section, whenever an engine of an airplane fails or whenever the rotation of an engine is stopped to prevent possible damage, the pilot in command shall land the airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made.(:( If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport:(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.(2) The altitude, weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage.(3) The weather conditions en route and at possible landing points.(4) The air traffic congestion.(5) The kind of terrain.(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.© The pilot in command shall report each stoppage of engine rotation in flight to the appropriate ground radio station as soon as practicable and shall keep that station fully informed of the progress of the flight.(d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the trip) send a written report, in duplicate, to his or her director of operations stating the reasons for determining that the selection of an airport, other than the nearest airport, was as safe a course of action as landing at the nearest suitable airport. The director of operations shall, within 10 days after the pilot returns to his or her home base, send a copy of this report with the director of operation's comments to the certificate-holding district office.

[michal 44]

I don't think they were even close to any fuel starvation. They probably pulled charts and they knew exactly how much they would be burning in the 3-engine configuration there was only one unknown - winds at lower altitude. For that they probably figured the best and worst scenario. With the best one they could make even to Heathrow, with the worst they may have to land say at Glasgow. And no doubt they were monitoring fuel situation very carefully. And this emergency landing - I have no clue why people make so much of it. Probably regardless where they landed - LAX, Nova Scotchia, Reykyavik, Glasgow, Heathrow it would have been emergency landing. This simply gives them priority treatment.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

[KevinAu 441]

>>PS - Kevin, a scenario. >>Let's say I take off from F70, my home airport in a Rented>Twin Commanche with two friends, the FBO tells me on takeoff,>I have sparks coming from an engine, (Now Documented on the>frequency), and I say oh, that's ok, I'll fly on up to San>Fran anyway, shut down the engine and keep going. I end up>declaring an emergency and land in say Fresno, with barely any>fuel in the tanks, (enough to get me on the ground) fire>trucks on the runway, and there to greet me is the FSDO Guy>for a Ramp Check, since he saw me come in on One Egine. He>then calls the FBO, and they tell him about the sparks on>takeoff.>>What does the FSDO Guy do to my Ticket?>&>Isn't the Engine Shutdown linked to my Emergency?> He will take action on you for violating 91.213. You took off with inoperative equipment, the engine, which is most likely listed with an ® as required equipment on your equipment list, therefore, you had no out with 91.213(d).However, the ops specs for BA did provide for these guys to continue flight with a failed engine on a four engine plane. You can certainly try and make a case for reckless operation, but as long as they correctly followed all the procedures for the continuance, your case for reckless operation is purely emotional, there is nothing concrete with which to back it up. Your best bet to get them would be to take it to a jury. And make sure you pick people who don't fly often, have no experience in aviation, and are scared to fly.

[Sonar5 3]

Michael, PLease....You are dealing in hyperbole here, and not the facts in question.You or I can't possibly know how much was left. What we do know is that he made his fuel shortage known, and he declared an Emergency due to that fuel shortage.You also can't possibly speculate on whether he would have declared an Emergency somewhere else if he had a bunch of fuel. Why? because of that was the case, why wouldn't he return to LAX and declare an Emergency.Let's stick to what we do know, and read the FAR that Kevin stated above. Seems pretty clear to me, he screwed up big time, IMHO.Read (:( 2 & 3 above as well that Kevin quoted.And requesting something like an Emergency has consequences to it as well.I wonder if we can get access to that report, or if it originated in LAX, if he even has to file it here? (The ten day one) ****************Grab My FREEWARE Voice recognition Profiles here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a][a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=60740]FSD Avanti Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

[btacon 1,788]

Extracted from the FAR:(4) The air traffic congestion.(5) The kind of terrain.(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.Please look at item (5). The terrain would be best classified as "Wet, Deep, Cold, and Sparce". "No alternative airports for hundreds of miles". "Nearest hospital/rescue hours away".Cheers,bt

[KevinAu 441]

They don't operate under FARs. Alright, that is a bit glib.The intent of that requirement is obstacle clearance. An ocean is as little obstacle as you can get. And besides, how is hitting dry, rocky, hard land any better than cold, deep, wet ocean? And if being hundreds of miles from an alternate is a reason not to go, then nobody should start any long distance flight to begin with.

[michal 44]

>know is that he made his fuel shortage known, and he declared>an Emergency due to that fuel shortage.This comes perhaps from CNN or other 'popular' media. I recall reading it and the sentence was highly ambiguous. But if you want me to stick to the facts I will do it with pleasure provided you don't want me to rely on popular press. I will wait for the article on this incident to show up in the future issue of say 'Aviation Week & ST' and then I will know exactly what really happened. I will gladly come back here to retract my story if need be.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

[JP_Visser 3]

>I agree with BT>>at the end of the day, the 747 was designed to fly with 4>engines, not 3 engines for 12 or so hours, i dont give a ####>what certification these AC have, 4 engines is 4 engines, the>most logical course of action would have been landing to the>nearest field ASAP,>>to many what ifs since they continued>>what if another engine went?>what if the engine caused problems to other areas of the>plane?>what if they had to ditch in the middle of the icy ocean?>what if what if what if.>>all these what if's would be eliminated if they went back to>where they took off from.yeah sure.they did not look at the "what if's"they just said...oh,engine failed,oh well,we've got three left..let's go on our merry way.yuk.glad you aren't flying me..bit strange landing a jet because the lightbulb went u/s.because,well..what if another lightbulb fails?what if it's not the lightbulb,but some electric wire?what if what if what if...guess what,their job was to consider the what iffs,but not linger on them,they're paid to DECIDE.i really think it is atrocious that all you desktop guyssit here,and without knowing all the factsstill slaughter this crew.and if you have 15 years of experience or whatever,i think you didn't learn much.but oh well,i guess people learning to fly a 747,then flying said aircraftfor a number of years know less then a security officer,or a ppl,or an atc guy,who weren't there,and have never flown a 747 themselves.as the guy in this thread about a comparable incident said:http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=151273&perpage=15&pagenumber=3"EAAC from Reunion As one of the crew members "compromising safety" I strongly object to the tone of this posting from some people and thank you to those who thought about it and made a more considered posting. There was no engine fire, the engine surged and was shut down. The French authorities, CAA and AAIB are all satisfied at the way the flight was conducted. The Aircraft was carrying 140 tonnes of fuel which enabled the flight to reach Europe quite easily and when passing Rome the decision to continue to De Gaulle was made as the weather was CAVOK three runways were in use and the French ATC had been advised. They were very helpful and the Aircraft landed with above min reserve. Oh and by the way on the Flight Deck we had over 80 years of experience on 747s and in excess of 50,000 flying hours. At no time was there any commercial pressure in fact the company were not aware of any problem until we had made the decision to continue. Please check your facts before posting, some of these messages are verging on the libelous"i urge you to check the facts once again.tataJP.